Thank you for all your hard work translating this El_Che!
It is a very stirring speech - we must choose reason over rhetoric if we are to survive and respect ourselves as a species (that is already proving difficult).
Results 1 to 18 of 18
i made the translation myself please excuse eventual mistakes...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
19-09-2001
Parliamentary intervention of Francisco Louçã Deputy of Portuguese left block.
Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen, Deputies:
The horror of the barbaric attack on New York and Washington, that victimized thousands of citizens, called to memory, in these tragic circumsantes of another event of 28 years ago, when Pinochet through his hordes at the palace of Allende. In both cases, we heard this distante cry of *“viva la muerte” that justified all these barbaric deaths, all the genocides and intolorences. Because of this it becomes necessary to say that terrorism that acted in the United States, does not represent the reasons of the oppressed. The representative of the poor is certainly not a millionare. The representatives of the oppressed are certainly not those taliban the forbid women from going to the Docter, going to the street alone, or having work. From cowardice *of *those that don’t even assume what they do, one can understand that terrorism must be fought in the name of the poor, the humiliated in the name of those who are discriminated and persecuted.
That is why the response *demands an joint action. But that action is determined by a choice and that choice is also of the Portuguese politic. And it is ours, of the Portuguese parliament. It is the choice between the party of war and the party of peace, between those that say, to war and all in force, and those that understand that the difference between the devastation and the rule of law, or between barbarism in one side and justice in another. Is lack of measures to fight terrorism? Its sure there is, and we must take steps to take them. Its is necessary traffic of arms. Its is necessary to have credible international justice, with treaties of extradition that permit the combat of crimes against human kind, with proof. It is necessary establish dialog North-South. It is necessary to combat religious fundamentalism. And above all it is necessary to cut the financial support of terrorists and perssue the criminals and those who support them, and above all guaranty peace in the middle east, because this is the greatest task of them all, that which the international community never accomplished. No hypocrisy is allowed in this fight.
As Colin Powell said that we must fight terrorism and those who support it – better that it be this way in all cases, because we live in a world acustomed *to hear the powerful speak of punishing the crimes of there enemies but to accept the ones of there friends. That is why we must have intelligence and not terror, and that is why we cannot accept the idea of the prolonged global war, what Eduardo Lourenço annunciates telling us we are on the edge of a new 100 year war. When in one hand we have the leadership of George Bush, that “loving guy”, that during 10 hours strolled him self from Nebrasca to Florida, from Florida to Nebrasca, and only 3 days after did he visit the victims of terror, one can understand from that his is not a political leadership capable of offering us any choices.
And if the spiral of violence and retaliation is the choice, it is wrong, and the facts prove it is so. In Lebbenon, this is what happened in the past- an Israili soldier was killed; one hole village was bombed; missiles were sent from one side to another of the border and, in the end it was Hezbollah that gained and Israel left Lebbanon. This is the paradox of our times. The modernity, in face of the event, always has an intuitive response, but paradoxal and disturbed: it never recognises what is new and always answers with old ideas. And there we have it now, the cold rhetoric of war. But war is the void of alternatives, in convokes us to a fight that is not tolerable, in the name of who invents that George Bush is some kind of D.Sebastiao *(1) that will land in Estoril, in a morning of fog to defend the “free world”. But what “free world” is this? The free world of England and France, that made war on china, for the freedom to sell opium, in the end of the century, or the free world that supports Saddam Hussein, when he desimates the Iraquian *left, or the one that supported Videla and Pinochet, Noriega or Papa Doc, Sukarno, the “free world” that accepts that the Turkis dictators desimate the Curds?! The “free world that recived the former emperor, «mon aim» Bokassa, that eat the organs of his victims, received with state honours in France for his “golden exile” ?!
What side was the”free world” on when the American secretary of state backed the taking of Cabul by the Taliban *and continued to back it until 1997?! The “free world was one then and another then?!
Did the “free world” include *UCK when it armed them and not when they desimate Macedónia, agents of the “free world” backed by the US ? the “free world” is Richard Armitage that, from the top of the white house decides war or peace, when involved with Oliver North in the trade of drugs for weapons, in the contra case? Or is it Benjamin Ben-Eliezer labor minister, of the International socialist, directed by our prime-minister that proudly states «we killed *14 palestinianes and the world didn’t complain»?!
The “ free world” includes Ariel Sharon, But did it include him before or after Sabra and Chatila? Before or after those shamefull *massacres? Included him before or after he refused to meet Arafat and continued the war?
What will the Saudi women think of this world? Or the Tchetchenes? Or Tibete, or all the peoples that are victims of this spiral of violence, where there is no justice no peace?
Nay Ladies and Gentlemen, Deputies, members of the house, the “free world”, the world that needs to be free, does not recognise this idea of crusade. Those who want war are forced to assume the responsibility that the constitution obliges them to: To come to this house and ask for war.
That is why sensible are all these declarations that recognise, that insist that Portugal is not at war and we add exactly because of that Portugal must want peace and justice against terror and violence. In this context, we shall not allow those who would wish to change the constitution to do so, allowing the extradiction to nations that have life sentence or the death penalty. When the constitutionalist so wanted it, it was not because he foresaw that in the future there would cease to exist horrendous crimes, but because he thought that law and justice combat crime with principals and they should not become criminal to combat crime. Was correct Benjamin Franklin, “those who give up the essencial freedom to obtain a little temporary security, deserve nither the freedom nore the security”
We do not accept that the inviolability of houses be put in question, least from those that do not wish to accept the violability of bank accounts. Look at the facts: Bin Laden gained 250 million dollars in the stock exchange, the tragedy has here its hypocrisy.
We don’t accept the tabloide politicians, that makes run after war, life penalty, ignorance, fanactism, or fear. This is why we defend and will defend the freedom in the world against war, because we defend the freedom that the world lacks. We chose between the party of war and peace.
Ladies and Gentlemen, members of the house, deputies:
We are in a difficult moment where the choices are difficult. But we are profoundly convinced that more courage is needed, more sense of state, sense of international cooperation, it is the duty that justice imposes on us, to take responsibility and make peace not war. This is the choice we must make. Portugal in the war does not count. Maybe a tabloide politician thinks that if he masscarades as corporal or sergeant of Bush he will win a few votes.
Now in the war Portugal does not count, but in peace it can. Because that is our choice, the choice for the party of peace, the party that shall win, that can win and that must win.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) D.Sebastiao was a portuguese king that died in the start of the portuguese expansion, and as a result our was a part of spain for 60 years. He was a young king an ppl loved him and thought he would come back to save them. Its a national mith.
Thank you for all your hard work translating this El_Che!
It is a very stirring speech - we must choose reason over rhetoric if we are to survive and respect ourselves as a species (that is already proving difficult).
It cannot but be supportive, socialist, communist or whatever you want to call it. Does nature, and the human species with it, have much time left to survive in the absence of such change? Very little time. Who will be the builders of that new world? The
thanks gauncho!
only 1 person read this? shame on you! its a nice speech and it was hard work too
its a great article altough my english is not so great i am to read it thanks for your hard work, if you dont mind i will re-distrubute it on this website
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DirectAction-Left
it might be available to in other languages as dutch or french soon!
respect equality liberation imagine
here here, a good speech and good work translating, very few flaws indeed
Excellent speach, however one must realize that President Bush isnt running things anymore, his advisors are, and the popular opinion is(which is full of people out for blood). I think we need a radical change in the way americans think, or we are deluding ourselves that anywhere can be a "free" deomocracy.
from each according to their ability to each according to their need
Fantastic job my friend. I would love to know where you got this speech. It is great.
Thanks for all your hard work.
Ask not what your country can do for you, or what you can do for your country. Ask what you can do for one another.
In a reply to a mild degree to a comment Che Jexster made: Interesting thing, the way the US is run by popular opinion, but popular opinion is run by the media, which is run by the corporations, which is run by the government, which is run by popular opinion, which is run by the media... etc etc etc...
the question is, who is REALLY in charge?!?
The green god is in charge, and I don't mean the Green man of the Celts. I mean the Green God of paper.
Ask not what your country can do for you, or what you can do for your country. Ask what you can do for one another.
but who is in charge of the green paper? the businesses...
The government. They print it at will. They decide which business get the most of it, in the form of tax cuts, relief etc., and they control the budget for the social programs.
Ask not what your country can do for you, or what you can do for your country. Ask what you can do for one another.
ok, but who is in charge of the government? popular opinion and the businesses...
Popular opinion, business and media are only in charge of what the government "says" it will do. It always serves it's own best interests. I see your point. But, please understand. The only power the business have is the power they are given by the government because the government of a capitalist country needs them. catch 22
Ask not what your country can do for you, or what you can do for your country. Ask what you can do for one another.
i just love catch 22, both the catch and the book itself...
nice discussion btw, much enjoyed
This is the kind of debate you can have when people are not just trying to start trouble, toot their own horns, or ram their personal agenda down your throat. Pleasant isn't it?
Ask not what your country can do for you, or what you can do for your country. Ask what you can do for one another.
Wow... Thanks for taking the time to translate this for us El Che... very moving...
In Solidarity,
RC
thanks for all the hard work you put into this el-che and let me tell you that i found the speech very interesting and i hope some of the right wingers that visit this site will take the time to read it
Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate.
Bertrand Russell
i read it but i didnt know that i had to write something... well it was excellent, comrade... good job!
\"I believe in the brotherhood of man, all men, but I don’t believe in brotherhood with anybody who doesn’t want brotherhood with me. I believe in treating people right, but I’m not going to waste my time trying to treat somebody right who doesn’t know how
